Mathew Pregasen: A Solution to Tournament Post-Round Adjudication
We are pleased to bring you an article by Mathew Pregasen regarding his view on how to best handle post round conflicts in the tab room.
A Solution to Tournament Post-Round Adjudication
Over the course of the last few years, there have been many instances of post-round adjudications: a common example, but not a limiting one, is when MJP (Mutual Judge Preferences) do not align and a suit is filed for a double win (and in rare cases, double loss). We can all agree that it is best such situations are averted, and amid tabulation software growing more accurate, over the course of the nation there remains many instances in which coaches, debaters, and parents go to tabulation to raise a complaint over a certain round. Given that judges/tabbers are human and no software is perfect, such occurrences are understandable.
However, post-round adjudications, regardless, will happen. And no tournament rulebook can accompany all the possible instances because it always seems as if new cases are raised (though, more specific tournament rules would be a move in the right direction to provide more transparency over such). Regardless of the school, debater, or coach involved, the post-round adjudication often follows as such:
1) School/Debater/Coach asks tab to investigate such decision.
2) There is often a long argument and a delay to the tournament.
3) A decision is made.
But as debate has evolved, a fourth and negatively impactful step occurs in which debate politics set afire: someone claims that such school utilized its historical standing as leverage to win the post-round adjudication (or shut one down). And to dismiss such statement is somewhat naive because we should, as a community, recognize that debate is a competitive activity that is political in nature, in which politics can go into play even outside the 45-minute round. This isn’t to blame any school – especially since once one school has achieved such success in post-round adjudication, every other school reasonably wants to claim that benefit should a similar situation rise. And with tabulation being run by other coaches, it wouldn’t be absurd to assume that a reasonable lack of transparency exists in such deliberations.
Granted, there is a practical matter to acknowledge: one cannot poll or consult all members of the community over such decisions, especially because they already delay the tournament a fair deal. Creating a really complicated and specific rulebook also presents a serious challenge (though perhaps, with the amount of work tournaments have to undergo in preparation, there should be public, online universal standards of rules to choose from that each tournament adopts).
I advocate we take a new approach to these issues. Given their frequency, it seems somewhat necessary that tournaments have an designated arbitrator for these situations. Granted, we would run into more problems if that identified arbitrator had debaters in the pool. One of the common issues brought up is the political (and potentially exaggerated but political nonetheless) atmosphere of tabrooms. I have on countless occasions heard “so and so spoke to so and so in tab and got a free win.”
So it is logical that this arbitrator is removed from the political sphere – something entirely possible if such individual wasn’t working in tab in the first place. I think it’d be a systemic (albeit non-perfect) improvement for tournaments to publicly name one coach to arbitrate disputes, whereas the situation at play is described to such coach by staffers in detail without the schools or debaters involved being named. So in the case that “John Doe Academy” and “Jane Doe Preparatory” have a judging dispute, they are presented to this arbitrator as “DebaterX” and “DebaterY.” I can’t attest that such system can go on so seamlessly, but with the immensity of those involved in the community, such system isn’t far from possible. Given the cross-event experience of many coaches, the arbitrator for Lincoln-Douglas, for instance, could be an individual who is currently tabbing Public Forum or Policy in that tournament, completely removed from the situation at hand. Potentially, even, the journey/difficulty to speak or find such arbitrator wouldn’t be necessary if main tabbing software like Tabroom or alike incorporates a feature that allows an anonymous memo by sent for them to arbitrate.
The anonymity of the debaters involved helps build an apolitical atmosphere – however, further questions may be raised to who should be chosen for such position. If an arbitrator was chosen from outside the activity, they may be less fluent in the norms of LD Debate. Thus, it is probably best the arbitrator be a coach involved with the community but equally has no stake in that present tournament. Sometimes, someone like this may not be available, but even if the arbitrator needs to be one with debaters involved in the tournament, the anonymity of each conflict is still a marginal step in the right direction.
Debate has made it through many milestones, and with the introduction of MJP and powering, it is not unimaginable to create this feature. Some tournaments may do it their own way, and while many issues of efficiency may be involved with such, it couldn’t hurt to try it. After all, these situations do not affect every round – sometimes, with luck, none at all. But they do exist, and with that in mind, we should adapt.
3 Comments
While there are merits to referring to the debaters anonymously when describing the situation to an arbitrator, I think that this alone would obviate the need to find someone that has zero stake in the tournament. Were this arbitrator, having a stake in the tournament, to find out after the fact that their decision favored an unpopular school they could reasonably reply “I made the right decision by addressing the heart of the matter rather than letting my knowledge of the debaters/their schools cloud that judgment.”
I am also curious what post-round problems occurred that inspired you to write this article. I feel that that gives important context to the message of your article.
There was a pretty large (with a ton of schools involved) post-round adjudication conflict one round at Yale.
I think this is – at the very least – a good idea. I agree with Adam when he points out that anonymity would really be the only factor necessary in creating this system, however, I will point out that anonymity doesn’t really exist when you’re at the tournament (at least if you’re paying attention, which we would hope this arbitrator does.) What if a coach was on location, but not involved with the event in question? Of course, there would be further criteria (probably something like “if you have students in the LD pool, you are disqualified from breaking an LD tab room tie”) but I think that allowing a coach from PFD or Policy, (most TOC tournaments offer all three events,) to get that same anonymous information which they are indifferent to would solve the problem.
Also, I really think you should NOT mention what happened that inspired you to write this. I think if we know what tournament/tournaments have created issues, then we’ll all start talking about how great or shitty those tournaments are, and why those aren’t great examples, etc. Let’s just talk about your idea first before all that business.
Again, cool idea. I’m interested to see what other people have to say.